‘Local authorities and social workers have turned a “blind eye” to the genital mutilation of young girls among African and other Third World communities in Britain for fear of being labelled racist. Social and health service staff are also “nervous” about preventing or reporting mutilation as they feel it conflicts with anti-racist policies.’
So anti-racism overrides the pain of thousands of young girls. But brown girls, so that’s OK. (Just as anti-racism overrides the fascism of Islamism and Islamist groups, as it does with Unite Against Fascism and other far-left groups.) It is strange that the local authorities and social workers who are often accused of ‘over-interfering with families’ should let the practice of genital mutilation continue. Or is this strange? Social workers seem to like interfering with white working class families, but leave Muslim families to do what they will – as long as it’s done in the name of religion and defended for anti-racist reasons. This is no too dissimilar with the case with halal slaughter:
white working class rabbit hunting = wrong
halal ritual slaughter = right
It’s not just genital mutilation that’s politically correct – well, politically correct if only brown Muslim people indulge in it. These councillors, social workers and politicians are also turning a blind eye to forced marriages, the denial of education to girls and so on. Again, it is politically correct for brown Muslims to deny their female children education or force them into marriages. Just as long as white people on the estates don’t do these kinds of things. That would be wrong. But we don’t need ‘racist bigots’ like me or Anne Cryer (MP for Keighley) to say these kinds of thing. Take the brown Muslim, Hannana Siddiqui, of Women Against Fundamentalism, she wrote:
‘Women are being forced into arranged marriages, homelessness and denial of education.’
Why is this? –Because
‘multiculturalists fail to intervene and support these women. For them it is all part of a culture and religion which must be tolerated. And anti-racists allow this to continue because they see the fight against racism as the central struggle.’ (New Statesman, May 1st, 1992, page 19)
We must respect culture and religion. No! Not quite. Not all cultures and not all religions. Not fox hunting, say, and Christianity. Instead, say, forced marriage and Islam. This is what is required to fight racism, which trumps everything. Indeed, as I have said, anti-racism trumps Islamo-fascism, terrorism, genital mutilation, forced marriage, Islamic reaction, and God know what else. This all sounds suspiciously like Trotskyism-gone-mad (or is that political-correctness- gone-mad?).
Of course, to expect the worst kinds of behaviour and morality from Muslims and brown people is quite simply racist. It is not even ‘inverted racism’, as people often put it. There is no kind of inversion going on here, as far as I can see. To believe that Muslim barbarity is OK, and non-Muslim barbarity is not-OK, is racist. Simple as that. To accept forced marriages for brown people, but not for the white people of Islington, is racist. Pure and simple.
When pious multiculturalists, and even the police, turn a blind eye to these sorts of things, young girls die and their clitorises are chopped off. Multiculturalism and anti-racism rules, OK?
Perhaps the root cause of these hypocrisies and contradictions is not anti-racist multiculturalism but moral and political relativism. But here again you will find that the relativists are rarely genuine relativists at all, just as the anti-racists are not really anti-racists. Take the example of tolerance. Don’t relativists treat tolerance as an absolute?… Except that they don’t in practice or even in theory. Scratch the pious surface and you will find that many relativists don’t tolerate fox hunting and football hooliganism.
Let’s face facts. Let us face the facts about what even relativists and multiculturalists believe when their rants and beliefs are actually analysed. All cultures are not equal. Not even all religions are equal. Indeed, the idea of equality (in the literal sense), just seems plain silly. All cultures do not ‘have the same values’. Even our culture/s does not now have the same values it had in the Middle Ages. Forget that. It doesn’t even have the same values it had in the 1950s. For example, there wasn’t much multiculturalism and anti-racist hypocrisy in the 1950s. There was genuine and nasty racism. (But at least it wasn’t hypocritical or ‘inverted’ racism.) Cannibalism is and was wrong. Crucifixion was and is wrong (some Muslims still believe in it and practice it). Genital mutilation and religious warfare (jihad) is wrong. Yes, and perhaps fox hunting is wrong too! (But that has been debated till the cows come home, unlike forced marriage, etc.)
The problem is that if we have moral and religious tolerance or multiculturalism, it will soon follow, or it already has followed, that the same kind of principles will be applied to the political and other domains. Take Hiskett on certain cases of multiculturalism-gone-mad. This is what many Muslims demand:
i) ‘his own literary censorship across the public domain.’
ii) ‘[to] constrain his daughter, born and educated as a British citizen, with all the rights that carries, into a distasteful marriage.’
iii) ‘[to] slaughter his beasts in the manner the non-Muslim majority considers inhumane.’
iv) ‘[to] require the school curriculum omit the theory of evolution from the biology lesson because his sons and daughters attend that school.’
v) ‘[to] insist that the academic year be disrupted to accommodate his movable festivals and so on.’ (Mervyn Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, St Albans, 1993, page 328)
Take all this to its logical conclusion. Take multiculturalism, anti-racism (which isn’t anti-racism) and moral/political relativism to their logical conclusion. One day, say in Islington, one may wake up and find oneself the subject of a complete system of sharia law. Would you ‘embrace’ that particular ‘diversity’? One may wake up and find that multiculturalism is little different to living under sharia law. However, Islington, and all the other places inhabited by neo-Calvinist liberals and far leftists, would probably be the last places subject to sharia law in Britain. Why is that? Because even though sharia law ‘doesn’t actually oppress Muslims’ (or even some white people), it most assuredly would oppress Islingtonians. A life without Chardonnay and Coldplay would be a life not worth living!